Published AAO appeal decisions

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

Irish dance teacher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Meets judging and leading/critical role criteria but only two of ten required; fails to establish original contributions, awards, membership, published material, or high salary. Lacks evidence of sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Actress seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found four criteria met but AAO withdraws published material and leading/critical role findings, leaving only judging and exhibitions; insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Environmental engineering researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles. AAO sustained appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition as among the very top of the field.

Barista with competition wins and judging experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met awards and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material criterion due to missing documentation requirements and unsubstantiated claims about publication standing. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria met.

Television producer with over 30 years experience seeks extraordinary ability classification in education. Claims five criteria met. AAO found only judging criterion satisfied; record does not support three required criteria. Appeal dismissed; final merits not addressed.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

Choreographer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in sensory therapy field. Met only judging criterion. Published material, membership, and awards criteria not met; publications lacked documentation and translations. Failed to establish initial three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Gymnastics coach sought extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, and judging. AAO sustained criteria analysis but dismissed on final merits, finding acclaim was based on past athletic career decades earlier, not sustained coaching achievements at required level.

A cardiologist employed at a university medical school sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. However, the final merits analysis rejected the petition, finding the petitioner's peer review participation, publications, and research role on cardiac arrest did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the field's elite.

A petroleum engineer and manager at a multinational company met three initial criteria but lacked national or international acclaim in the aggregate. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding his recognition limited to his employer rather than the field.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Award-winning composer, lyricist, and performer sought EB-1A classification. Met four criteria: awards, published material, judging, and display (comparable evidence). AAO found totality of evidence, including major fellowship and media coverage, demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and top-tier status.

A speed skater and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of three claimed criteria: awards lacked recognition evidence, contributions of major significance showed only local team impact, and the coaching role lacked documentation of critical importance.

An athlete sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no statement identifying any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact, so no evidentiary criteria were analyzed or decided.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

A clinical fellow in pulmonary and critical care medicine sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. The service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the appeal statement identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the denial, so no criteria were examined.

A film producer, director and screenwriter sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming a major award and several evidentiary criteria. The AAO held no one-time achievement was shown and fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and that comparable evidence could not substitute, so the appeal was dismissed.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

A landscape architect sought extraordinary ability classification in business, claiming nine criteria. The service center accepted three criteria but denied on final merits. The AAO agreed that three criteria were met and found that awards, board service, publications and exhibitions together showed sustained acclaim, sustaining the appeal.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Professional swimmer met two initial criteria: awards and membership. The AAO found published material inadequate due to missing author and media qualification, and leading role not established due to lack of organizational distinguished reputation. Three criteria required; only two met. Appeal dismissed.